MON-100
sovietic anti-personnel mines
The MON-100 is a circular, sheet metal bodied, directional type of anti-personnel mine designed and manufactured in the early 1960s by the Soviet Union. It is designed to wound or kill by fragmentation and resembles a large bowl.
The mine is reported to be deployed in Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia.
Design
The MON-100 mine body has a smooth, well finished appearance with a webbing handle mounted on the upper edge. It is usually attached to a mounting shackle by wing nuts on either side of the mine body (the shackle is connected to a spike for securing the mine to buildings, trees etc.). The concave face of the mine has a detonator cavity in its center (this is the side aimed at the target).
The mine contains 2 kg of explosive to propel 450 steel rod fragments to a lethal range of 100 m (thus the "100" in the name), at maximum range the spread of the fragmentation is 9.5 m. The mine alone weighs 5 kg but with the shackle and mounting spike the weight is 7.53 kg. The MON 100 can be command actuated using a PN manual inductor attached by demolition cable to an EDP-R electric detonator. It can also be actuated by a variety of booby trap (BT) switches including:
MUV series pull
MVE-72 electric breakwire
VP13 seismic controller.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “MON-100” is sovietic anti-personnel mines. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through MON-100, sovietic and anti-personnel, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “sovietic anti-personnel mines” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 1, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q4273535. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “MON-100”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow MON-100 primary sources, MON-100 archive and MON-100 research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “MON-100”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “MON-100” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.