Talk:Claymore mine

Opening heading
Regarding the question below, the name Claymore came from Norman MacLeod, the inventor of the mine, who was a Scot. He named the mine after the popular Scottish weapon, the Claymore.

Does anyone know the origin of the name "Claymore" ? Who was Claymore ? And what was his contribution ?


 * Yes. Not "who," "what." Many dead sassenachs. (See the article.)

Claymore is the celtic scottish longsword see german article--78.48.0.194 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that as well as adding a few links and some notes on usage, I have tried everywhere to correct the use of the word "mine" to describe the Claymore. This is because under the definition in the Ottawa Treaty (and for that matter, the ordinary dictionary definition: mine), it isn't one. Securiger 02:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Who manufactures this? ike9898 19:25, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Nomenclature, etc
INSERTION BY USER Martin --

Units and conversion rate of meters and feet for the velocity should be harmonized

feet   m       m/f

3,995	1,218	0.3049

4,000	1,200	0.3000

3,775	1,151	0.3049

m      feet    m/f

1,200   3,937	0.3048  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.101.245 (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

INSERTION BY USER Wikifreeman - the original author of this 'Problems with Nomenclature, etc' discussion...

To: Securiger

(BTW, sorry I wasn't logged in last time but wiki wouldn't accept my username & password; today's it's behaving)

To give you a heads up about what I foresee...

I envision a detente where your explanations are not to my satisfaction about why the Claymore [M18[A1]] (or if you prefer, the more generic term 'claymore') is not a landmine. We are thus left with 3 options:


 * I edit, you edit, I edit, you edit until the page gets locked, or flagged as controversial
 * (preferred) You and I work together toward some text that we both fairly believe describes the claymore, or
 * We invite some party(ies) to adjudicate on this matter and agree to abide by their decision.

I'll not get into too much detail here about the weaknesses in your postulations that I see, but offer this:

(ICBL=International Campaign to Ban Landmines) which does a nice job of 1) defining a generic claymore and 2) distunguishes between command and tripwire activated modes. ... BTW, your use of "pretty well everyone on earth disagrees with you here" would seem not to include the folks who are interested in banning landmines (The Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division) enumerates dozens of landmines; to wit: pg 1: "CHINESE LANDMINE, APERS, CLAYMORE, TYPE 66" pg 1: "U.S. LANDMINE, APERS, HE, M18" pg 2: "U.S. LANDMINE, APERS, HE, M18A1; & PRACTICE M68"
 * 1) The statement on the wiki-page that says "the Claymore does not meet the definition of a landmine (neither the military, Ottawa Treaty, nor ordinary dictionary definitions) is obviously patently untrue, given my citation of the Merriam-Webster definition. Yet you haven't adjusted this text to reflect the evidence I have presented to you.
 * 2) You have seemingly ignored the reality that M18A1 Claymore's are deployed in the Korean theatre and are emplaced in trip-wire activation mode, all according to the manufacturing-country's spec.
 * 3) Using wiki* resources to support a disagreement on the meaning of a wiki-page is specious at best, given that wiki pages are user-generated and not up to the standard of published, edited works. Can we both agree to seek 'higher' references in terms of definitions and for the purposes of resolving this disagreement? (I love and respect wiki, but it isn't infallible and using a wiki resource to support another wiki resource is circular logic.)
 * 4) Other cites I've encountered lately:
 * ) http://www.icbl.org/lm/factsheets/pdf/claymore_jan_2002.pdf
 * ) https://naveodtechdiv.navsea.navy.mil/IraqOIG/PDF-low/08-Landmine.pdf

(And I'm inclined to think that the The Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division might know a little of what constitutes a landmine, eh?!)

^^^^^^^^^^

Anyway, I'm happy to work with you to come up with something that we are both comfortable with. To that end may I invite you to email me at freeman2once@reason.dyndns.org (replace the 2 with an underscore) and we can discuss this? This wiki-discussion page is too difficult to edit suitably.

^^^^^^^^^^

Some preliminary questions that I would have:


 * is the wiki page in question intended to describe a generic (lower-case) claymore (e.g. "A claymore mine is a generic term for a round or rectangular directional fragmentation munition that can function either in a command-detonated or victim-activated mode") or the proper-name, capitilized (M18[A1]) "Claymore", as manufacured on behalf of, and deployed by, the USA? I propose the former is most suitable.


 * there should be some discussion of how the nomenclature is subject to debate - we can both do an admirable job of supporting our positions - shouldn't they both be reflected and articulated? (Present the reader with all facts - both sides of the debate)


 * the nomenclature section should probably be toward the end of the article, not the beginning. The 'meat' of the article should be about the device - its history, use, technology. Debates about names should, IMO, be suboridinate to such grist.


 * maybe some mention of the loaded-word nature of landmine is in order (and an observation that areal-denial munition is a less inflamitory phrase?) - or is this done suitably in the landmind page?


 * can you find a cite for the etymology of 'claymore mine' as you had mentioned that you might? If not I propose that it be removed if such etymology cannot be authoritatively documented. (Or at least rephrase it so that it doesn't sound so very apocryphal ;)

scott - wikifan...--Wikifreeman 08:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

END OF INSTERTION BY USER Wikifreeman

I've been reading a bit about landmines, Ottawa Treaty and claymores in discussion with one who thinks as this article purports - that claymores aren't landmines.

In refuting this position I've accumulated some quotes & cites. The purpose of my sharing them here is to invite discussion and a possible re-write of portions of this wiki article in order to correct what I see is a significant mis-identification.

I'd propose the following statements as facts, supported by the cites that follow:


 * the claymore is a "landmine", by dictionary and .mil definition
 * landmines needed not be be detonated by the actions of the victom alone, to be a landmine (i.e. command-detonated landmines are still landmines)


 * This is the key point, and I'm afraid pretty well everyone on earth disagrees with you here; landmines are victim activated, or they aren't landmines--although they may optionally be also command detonated. -- Securiger
 * the manufacturer, USA, specifically permits tripwire-mode emplacement of its landmines in the Korean theatre


 * As our article already clearly states, attachment of a tripwire activation device converts an explosive weapon into a mine (or booby-trap); such an operation is illegal in most countries, and even in the US is severely restricted. Several of your comments below give the impression that you think tripwire activation is an option built-in to the claymore; it isn't, it is done by attaching a totally separate initiator, which is not designed specifically for the claymore, but for standard NATO fuze well sizes, and can be attached to any explosive weapon that conforms to those standards. That happens to include scores of weapons not considered to be mines, such as artillery shells (and bulk civilan explosives as well). A very similar device exists for Warsaw pact fuze sizes. It is also possible to arrange a tripwore to pull the trigger of an automatic weapon, so small arms can also be converted into mines/booby-traps. In other words, if you define a weapon as being a landmine if it is possible to convert it to victim activation by addition of a separate victim activated triggering system, your definition of landmine would cover all weapons, which is clearly not a useful definition. You might as well say that a jerrycan of fuel is a fire bomb, since all you need to do is attach an M4 burster charge, and you've got a fire bomb! (As an aside, the US is not the only manufacturer of claymores). -- Securiger

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Definition of landmines:

Merriam Webster defines "landmine" as follows:

>>>

Main Entry: land mine Function: noun 1 : a mine usually placed on or just below the surface of the ground and designed to be exploded usually by the weight of vehicles or troops passing over it 2 : BOOBY TRAP 1

<<<

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=landmine

(Note "usually by the ..."). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 * Not being a specialist technical dictionary, MW's entry is necessarily brief, and I believe you have misinterpreted the "usually by the ...". What is "usually" is the weight, i.e. some landmines are activated by tripwires, lateral pressure on a tilt-rod, or even more exotic triggers such as vibration or magnetism. But the key point is "designed to be exploded ... vehicles or troops passing over it". Here are a few others which are perhaps clearer (my emphasis added):
 * The Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 3rd ed.: landmine n. a device containing an explosive charge, placed in the ground and detonated by pressure, as that of someone stepping on it or driving over it.
 * The Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 3rd ed.: mine n. 4. a subterranean passage made to extend under an enemy's works or position, as for the purpose of securing access or of depositing explosives for blowing up the position. 5. a device containing a large charge of explosives in a watertight casing floating on or moored beneath the surface of the water for the purpose of blowing up an enemy vessel which touches it or passes in close proximity to it. 6. a similar device used on land; a landmine.
 * Wiktionary: Noun mine (plural: mines) ... 2. A device intended to explode when stepped upon, touched, or in proximity to a ship or vehicle.
 * WordNet: land mine n : an explosive mine hidden underground; explodes when stepped on or driven over
 * "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices": "Mine" means a munition placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area and designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person or vehicle.
 * American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed. mine n. ... 4b. An explosive device used to destroy enemy personnel, shipping, fortifications, or equipment, often placed in a concealed position and designed to be detonated by contact, proximity, or a time fuse.
 * The inclusion of time fuse in the last one, BTW, is important to clear up some further confusion: originally, a mine was a chamber tunnelled under enemy defences, charged with bulk explosives, and detonated by a time delay. This usage is still accepted in the military but is rare and has a distinctly archaic flavour (the most recent examples I am aware of were in World War I, example at Messines Ridge). However, while such a charge is correctly called a "mine", it is never called a landmine. The concepts are ancestrally related, but are distinct devices. -- Securiger 20:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition of landmines, esp claymore:

Merriam Webster defines "claymore mine" as follows:

>>>

Main Entry: claymore mine Function: noun Etymology: perhaps from claymore
 * a usually electrically fired land mine that contains steel fragments which are discharged in a predetermined direction

<<<

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=landmine

(Note "land mine".) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 * The editors of MW have fallen into the same difficulty I mentioned earlier, namely, how do you categorise a claymore when it is the only thing in its category. Like others, as I noted before, they call it a mine because it's kind of similar. But it's a very sloppy--in fact incorrect--usage; I'll email them a correction. 8^) -- Securiger 20:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition of landmines:

USA's "FM 20-32, Mine/Countermine Operations", from "Headquarters, Department of the Army" says [PDF, page 25]:

> Chapter 1 > Introduction > [...] > MECHANICS OF MINES > CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONING > > A land mine is an explosive device that is designed to destroy or damage > equipment or personnel. Equipment targets include ground vehicles, boats, > and aircraft. A mine is detonated by the action of its target, the passage of > time, or controlled means.

[18MB file!] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32_2002/fm20-32_change1_3.pdf

Note the inclusion of the multiple detonation means for what is a "mine".
 * Sure: there can be more than one way to detonate it. But the methods must at least include victim activation. And in the next sentence but one after the one you quoted, we find: "A firing mechanism prevents the mine from exploding until it makes contact with, or is influenced by, its target." Then there's Appendix A of the same document which lists all current US mines, guess what, the claymore isn't on that list. -- Securiger

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

USA's official permission for tripwire-mode emplacement in the Korean theatre:

> M18A1 CLAYMORE > > The M18A1 claymore munition (Figure 4-2) is a fragmentation munition that contains 700 steel balls and 682 grams of composition C4 explosive. It weighs 1.6 kilograms and can be detonated by command (Korea Only: or trip wire).

(Ibid. PDF page 118)
 * Notice that this is a "claymore munition" which is a "fragmentation munition", listed in the chapter on special munitions, separately from the chapter on mines. (And I think you will be surprised by the rigamarole that has to be gone through to authorise that conversion, even in Korea.) -- Securiger 20:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

To review my points thus far: : the claymore is a "landmine", by dictionary and .mil definition :landmines needed not be be detonated by the actions of the victom alone, to be a landmine (i.e. command-detonated landmines are still landmines) :the manufacturer, USA, specifically permits tripwire-mode emplacement of its landmines in the Korean theatre
 * Nope. Your dictionary defintion of "landmine" did not include it, except by your misinterpretation. The MW defintion of "claymore mine" (hmm, surely begging the question) does seem to, but I believe that is a sloppy usage in a nontechnical definition; numerous other dictionary definitions do not support it at all. You did not locate the military definition, but an introductory descriptive paragraph, which, however, doesn't support your position if you read to the end of the paragraph. -- Securiger
 * Yes, they do. That is the key distinguishing feature that makes a weapon a landmine, as against an explosive munition. It is acceptable for a landmine to be also command detonated, and some anti-tank mines have provision for that. -- Securiger
 * The USA is not the sole manufacturer. They do permit claymores to have tripwire switches attached in Korea (but restrict it), however this process constitutes conversion to a mine or booby-trap, and can be applied to any explosive weapon; this is already mentioned in our article, and the fact that a weapon can be converted to a mine does not make it a mine. -- Securiger

Have I suported well my position?
 * In my opinion, the only point you made which supports you is the MW definition of "claymore mine", and for the reasons I stated, that is weak support. All your other points seem to fall into either a) thinking that a "tripwire emplaced claymore" is a type of claymore or a feature of the claymore, which it is not; or b) misreadings (perhaps due to confirmation fallacy?), such as reading a list of optional methods of initiation as being exclusive to each other. -- Securiger

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Exclusion of claymores wrt Ottawa Treaty.

The Ottawa treaty in it's preamble indicates the desire to ban all AP landmines ("Recognizing that a total ban of anti-personnel mines would also be an important confidence-building measure"). In the formal body of the text it *defines* treaty-restricted landmines as:

>>>

Article 2 Definitions

[...] 2. "Mine" means a munition designed to be placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area and to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person or a vehicle.

[...]

<<<

Text of "Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997" International Red Cross site: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/d111fff4b9c85b0f41256585003caec3?OpenDocument

Note: "exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person". This would include a tripwire-emplaced claymore but not a command-detonated claymore.
 * Exactly. Both treaties clearly don't class claymores as mines, unless you modify them by attachment of a separate fuzing device (not being part of the claymore, or even issued with it) which can also be attached to any other explosive weapon. And our article already states "... converted into a landmine or booby trap by adding a booby trap switch and trip wire. (This latter procedure is illegal in many countries.)" -- Securiger

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

point by point let's look at the "Nomenclature" section, in particular.

> Nomenclature > > When first invented, the Claymore was a new weapon which did not fit into any obvious category, it's quite fairly and accurately labelled a (land)mine by every definition of the word, as I indicated above.
 * No, you found one (nontechnical) definition which seemed to, and several others which actually undermine your position when read correctly. -- Securiger

> and so was sometimes called a "mine" simply for lack of any better name. This sounds fishy. Is there a cite for this etymology?
 * Personal conversations with veterans of that war, I'm sorry. I'll see if I can find a better one, however I'm not aware of any formal studies of Korean War slang. -- Securiger

> However the Claymore does not meet the definition of a landmine (neither the military, see my cites above
 * All incorrect, with the exception of one MW entry (but not the other). -- Securiger

> Ottawa Treaty, see my cites above
 * Totally undermines you. The only way I can think that you think this supports you, is if you believe tripwire detonation is an option built in to claymores. It isn't, and our article already states that. -- Securiger

> nor ordinary dictionary definitions), see my merriam-webster cite, above.

> and has never been subject to the particular restrictions > governing the use of landmines. see my cite above, wrt tripwire-emplaced claymores in the Korean theatre and the Ottawa Treaty
 * Your own cite (which I was actually reading when I wrote that) clearly indicates claymores are not covered. "tripwire-emplaced claymores" are a modification incorporating a totally different device which is not part of the claymore, not issued with it, nor even designed especially for it. And the article already states that adding such a device constitutes conversion into a mine or booby-trap. -- Securiger

> As such it is now usually referred to as the "M18A1 Claymore" or simply the "Claymore". not accurate (based on the flawed reasoning which precedes) - an "A1M1 tank" is commonly referred to as an "A1M1" but this is not noteworthy - i.e. this mention of the vernacular name of the "claymore landmine" being "claymore" needn't be included in the wiki.
 * No-one says "claymore landmine" (Google hits: 70). A lot of people, mainly civilians, say "claymore mine" (14,200 hits)--that is the vernacular, which is why we've used it for the article title, but we then have to explain that it's not the proper name. "M18A1 Claymore" and "M18 Claymore" (549 hits) are (and always have been) the official names, but what they are actually called by the soldiers who operate them is just plain "claymore". -- Securiger

=
==================

=
==================

To wrap up:

A landmine is a landmine because of what it is, and how it is used. The claymore is the requisite explosive device and is used in the same purpose as any other landmine. The claymore (as designed and as used) even meets the definition of a (land)mine, as defined by its 'producer', the USA mil.
 * The key, critical point of a landmine, which gives it different properties to any other weapon, is that it is victim activated. This means landmines remain effective weapons even when not attended by troops, but also means they continue to remain dangerous after the troops have gone, and cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians. The claymore does not have those features. -- Securiger
 * A claymore is a simple, flexible weapon that is used in a variety of roles that are unrelated to landmines. A very, very tiny fraction of claymores are used for the same purpose as landmines, but only after modification which entails complete replacement of the firing system--a process that can just as easily be applied to numerous other non-mines, from artillery shells to small arms, and even including civilian explosives. -- Securiger
 * The claymore clearly does not meet the US military, or any other, definition of a landmine because it is a direct fire, operator controlled weapon. It also fails the definitions used in International Law (Ottawa Treaty, Protocol on Prohibitions..., etc.) -- Securiger 20:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can perhaps the original author make some updates to this page?

Thanks, scott ... wikifan!


 * Acording to Department of the Army Technical Manual TM 9-1300-200 Ammunition, General (change 4) (October 1969) the Claymore is illustrated as and stated to be a "Fixed directional APERS mine". Additionally, the US has defined it as a mine for many, many years.  What's the issue about it?  As issued, it is command detonated.  Several manuals oriented toward the American soldier have also included instructions on how to improvise a target inititiation system.  Similar types, such as the MON-series of russian mines, have also been classed as mines by the US military,  The advent of calling them "munitions: is likely because of the ban and related PR needs or the testing/adoption of the special operations PDM's that use a more complex onboard fuzing system.  As far as a claymore is concerned, it can be whatever type of explosive device you want depending on what the blasting cap you put in it is tied into. Deathbunny 06:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, the Claymore is a Dirivative weapon. It is based on the "Bouncing Betty" grenade that was introduced by the Germans in World War II. Bouncing Betty was a Shaped Charge Grenade which was packed with Ball Bearings, and then spring loaded into a tube. It was fired by either a lanyard across the path of the enemy, which fired the striker when it was pulled, or else by a Pressure Plate that released the lanyard when stepped on. When released, it would bound up to a height of 6 to 8 feet, and explode. When it exploded, it would shower a circular area with ball bearings. It was an area weapon, and the user had to be clear of the kill radius.

Bouncing Bettey is still in production - by the Russians and other former Warsaw Pact nations and the Chinese. We decided to improve on the idea with a directed weapon - hence the Claymore. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Acronym?
I heard at a military history museum that "claymore" could be written backwards as an acronym for "enemy reversal of mine, you are lost cause." I was told that in the Vietnam or Korean War or something, enemy soldiers would sneak to the American camps, turn the mines around, and sneak back the night before an attack. Then, when they set off the claymores, they hit themselves with it. I don't have any sources on this though. Does anybody else know of this? (Ghostofgauss 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

Turning around (not the acronym) was written about in "The Phantom Blooper" by Gustav Hasford. (http://www.gustavhasford.com/blooper.htm) "I check the position of each Claymore mine. We paint the backs of our Claymores white so we can count them in the dark and see that they are still facing outboard." added 2006-04-19

Current advice is to turn them to face across the front of the unit... That way, if they are turned, it isn't towards the unit.

Metal Gear Solid
From the Pop Culture section:

They are prominent in the Metal Gear Solid series, although they are often used to attack guards and soldiers instead of tanks.

But the rest of the article describes them as an anti-personnel weapon, so the 'although' is a bit out of place. I suppose I could simply remove the part of the sentence after the comma, but if they are used occasionally against tanks (as the sentence implies), then that mention is probably worth leaving in. Anyone who's played through Metal Gear Solid, care to edit?

CLAYMORE FIELD MANUAL
The manual is NOT a product of Global Security - it is a product of the US Army, and is in the Public Domain. You do NOT have to credit Global Security at all. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting
I've had a go, but I'll leave the tag on for now. FiggyBee 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Do not eat"?
I have heard that this message was printed on the Claymore mine. Is this true? If so could it be mentioned in the article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a Claymore mine version which clearly says "DO NOT EAT" on bottom face. 176.92.52.11 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(Brooks A. Mick, COL US Army Retired) In Vietnam an occasional soldier learned through the grapevine that, if he ate a small amount of C4, he would develop symptoms similar to hepatitis (jaundice), and would be evacuated to Japan for a more or less cushy period of time to a clean bed with female nurses around, and if really lucky even evacuated back to the USA. Unfortunately, eat just a little bit more than enough to make the liver temporarily sick and the C4 totally killed the liver and killed the soldier. Thus the instruction "Do Not Eat." As I recall, one had to disassemble the Claymore and the warning was printed on the back of the C4 charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.80.21 (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that. The amusingly obvious "FRONT TOWARD ENEMY" text might merit a greater mention, though. 71.203.209.0 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Inhowfar "amusing"? You have a flat box that fires shrapnell in one direction. You are in lethal battle and have to hasten to set it up. Quick, which one is the "business end" of the mine? I sure prefer large embossed letters over more "subtle" means to avoid being blown up by my own weapon. 212.149.48.43 06:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the combination of "FRONT" and "TOWARD ENEMY" that is amusing. Either one alone would not be. It is also a moot point, since being BEHIND a Claymore is only marginally less lethal. The proper manner to deploy them is in a "swastika" pattern. Visualize a swastika where the arms end in arrows and you are standing at the very center. You deploy the claymores around you at each "elbow" and face it in the direction of the arrow. That way, none of the back-blast comes towards YOU.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.32.249 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That "Front towards enemy" sign is gonna get someone killed one day. Its a minor trope in movies that people strap one of these to their chest as a way to blow up a bad dude without killing yourself. Unfortunately some poor GI that didnt pay attention in bootcamp is gonna try this one day and get returned home to the parents in a compact paste format Duckmonster (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Some external links that were deleted. Personally I think they are quite interesting. Robneild 08:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Video #1 of Claymore mines being fired
 * Video #2 of Claymore mine being fired
 * Video #3 of Claymore mine being fired
 * Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining
 * Macroswiss claymore camera attachment
 * Claymore on Youtube

Thorite Choke
Is there a special reason that the choke is made of a radioactive material or is this a typo for ferrite choke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.100.5 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mistake in the source propagated by myself - Occam's razor would suggest ferrite - good catch. Megapixie 12:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy, Thompson et.al
In the last paragraph with the discussion (above) of a ferrite choke, there is a mention of 'tinfoil': "A layer of tinfoil...". Am I to assume this is aluminum foil? Thanks, Karanne (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization
When in reference to a specific nation's troops, the word soldier should be capitalized. The reference says "U.S. Soldiers", meaning the word should be capitalized. If you were talking about soldiers in general and not specific ones then there would be no need to capitalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.206.99 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

....no. The American army is the world's only army to capitalize the word "soldier" in self-reference. American sailors do not call themselves Sailors, and American airmen do not call themselves Airmen (<--read that as gender-all-inclusive)...and American officers do not call themselves Officers. Marines can call themselves Marines but that's because they're talking about the American Corps and not (for example) the British Corps. I think it's because of the whole soldier/marine DIFFERENCE.

Canadian soldiers don't call themselves Soldiers, neither do Iraqi soldiers. I don't know why the Americans do it, nor do I care. But other nations (so far, anyway) don't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.179.11 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

C3 -> C4
The Description says the Claymore use C-4, however the Development section always says C-3 all they way through later modifications. I'm assuming that they switched explosives at some point, but it has not bee clearly identified.Larek (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Development Specs
The "Kennedy, Throner, Bledsoe, and Kincheloe at Aerojet" section lists a set of requirements (although no citation for them). One of them is listed as "a velocity of 4,000 feet (1,200 m) per second". 4000 ft/s is 1219 m/s. This is particularly confusing, because later it is stated that "the velocity improved to 3,995 feet (1,218 m) per second". Depending on which units you look at this either did or did not meet the requirements, 3995<4000, but 1218>1200. I'm guessing given the time and place that the requirement was in ft/s, but without a reference I'm not sure and don't want to make things worse by making a bad edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheiss (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Move? (2010)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

M18A1 Claymore Antipersonnel Mine → M18 Claymore — Relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, we don't call M1 Abrams M1 Abrams Tank. A1 designates the variant and we don't need articles on every variant. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To some people the Scottish sword called a claymore is still a significant meaning. Leave "Antipersonnel Mine" in the title and be clear. (And "Tank" in the Abrams example, when writing for people who were not thinking in terms of army tanks at the time.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me but a previous dicussion determined that ambiguous titles such as howitzer in M109 howitzer and mortar as in M120 mortar should be uncapitalized also Antipersonnel should be anti-personnel. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force is the relevant guideline here. This suggests that the name should normally consist of two parts: a model identifier, and a type designator. Both the existing name and the proposed name appear to me to comply to this guideline, so it's not a lot of help with the current issue but I think we should note this. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tripwires
A Claymore can be rigged with a tripwire. The technique I was taught was a wooden clothespin, a battery and a white c-ration (yes, c-ration) spoon. That being said, there is no 'official' way to detonate a Claymore with a tripwire, nor a timer, nor a laser, nor an IR sensor, nor a lit fuse. I wish there was. Please provide a cite for any mention of tripwire detonation of a Claymore. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also you can use a safety pin and some nails. In 'Nam we were also taught to set it up so that this device would be blown up if tripped. Supposedly, Bobby trapping a claymore was a violation of some convention, so we didn't want evidence left. BTW, when we did things like this, there were "mechanical ambushes"; when the other side did it, they were Bobby traps.Wschart (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Usage in combat - history
The article is currently heavy on design and development, which is good; but it currently lacks any discussion of how much it has been used in combat, in what conflicts, under what circumstances, how many casualties are attributed to its use, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Use in fiction?
Rambo (IV)--Timtak (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on M18 Claymore mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2003/MAR_APR_2003/MAR_APR_2003_PAGES_10_12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M18 Claymore mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017193103/http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=5452 to http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=5452
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017193108/http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=7544 to http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=7544
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017193113/http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=7545 to http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=7545

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Front toward enemy" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Front toward enemy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 09:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Claymore mine. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

M18 Claymore mine → M18A1 Claymore – Name of mine is "M18A1 Claymore". Eurohunter (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment: Removing "mine" would make the title less WP:RECOGNIZABLE to most people. Wikipedia policy is to use the WP:COMMONNAME. Move to , which already redirects here. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Claymore mine per BarrelProof. BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this appears to cover all variants of the M18, not just the M18A1 variant -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment "Claymore mine" might be the better name, per BarrelProof / BilledMammal -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * per BarrelProof. It's a better article name according to four of the five of the WP:CRITERIA (neutral, I think, on consistency), including precision, as this article discusses more than just the M18 or M18A1 models. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)