That is absolutely true AT mines are excluded even if it's known to carry people outside of the crew of said vehicle. It appears Ireland was in the forefront of this as amended...
Article 2 (3):
"It is the understanding of Ireland that the word `primarily' is included in article 2, paragraph 3 of the amended Protocol to clarify that mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped.”
Most of the countries seeking amendments to the treaty deferred to Ireland as follows as taken from China's position...
"
[Same declaration, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by Ireland.]"
Again as posted previously above, with the countries amendments at the bottom, below the list of signatories to the treaty...
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDe...r=26&clang=_en
The treaty also covers the border as amended and understood by Canada and France in a similar fashion. From Canada...
"
3. It is understood that the maintenance of a minefield referred to in Article 10, in accordance with the standards on marking, monitoring and protection by fencing or other means set out in Amended Protocol II, would not be considered as a use of the mines contained therein."
So in the game this type of minefield would be useless as in the real world. Your enemy would just go around them or use equipment to detonate them and clear a path as we did so well in Iraq. And the real game issue hear is it would have to show up on the map so both players could see it.
But I believe the game
doesn't distinguish between AP and AT mines I don't think. A mine is a mine, if you will.
Regards,
Pat
