Was Hawthorne mine exploded early?

[Guest KevinEndon]

Almost everyone you speak to says that Hawthorne mine was exploded earlier than planned at 07:20 instead of 07:30. The war diary says different, here is the extract sent to me clearly stating that it was planned to go up at 07:20.

Auchonvillers Sector 22nd June 1916. H 3 mine under the enemy finished 1050 long, 80 feet deep 40.600 lbs ammanol charge.

23rd June 1916. All the infantry working for this unit were returned to their divisions and the bombardment commenced for the offensive of the 29th.

24th June 1916. The enemy got into “John Tunnel” and exploded a large charge, the charge did not do much damage but Sgt West and Sapper Langlands were killed by gas and 2nd Lieutenant Davidson and 8 men were with difficulty rescued. All were barely gassed. The mouth of Mark Tunnel was badly blown in by a shell but repaired. 2nd Lieutenant Ridge was accidently wounded.

25th June 1916. The 29th division ordered all their emplacements open at 2a.m. on the morning of 29th June 1916 and the forward faces opened at 07:30 which is the hour of zero. The mine under Hawthorne Redoubt containing 40.600 lbs of ammanol to be fired at 07:20. The 4th division faces are to be opened at 07:25 the 51st division are to be opened at 06:30.

We are lead to believe that it was due to go up at 07:30 along with the others, can anyone put any more light onto why the story of it going up early exists please

Kevin

[Paul Reed]

Actually it was more complex than that. In the planning stage, the Director of Mines wanted it blown an hour before the attack, and the Divisional commander at the time of the assault. The timing of 07.20 was the compromise, so the Divisional commander sent a company of 2/Royal Fusiliers plus MG and TMB men over at 07.20 to 'guard' the crater in case the Germans popped up. The rest, as they say, is history.

The spelling is Hawthorn by the way.

[Simon Jones]

It certainly was complex and I examined the whole question in detail for my book ‘Underground Warfare’ which comes out later this year from Pen & Sword (another shameless plug!). Even the official historian couldn’t entirely get to the bottom of it despite correspondence with the corps and divisional commanders, two of their staff officers, the commander of 252 Tunnelling Company, the 4th Army Controller of Mines and the Inspector of Mines. Everyone blamed everyone else, although Hunter Weston, commanding 8th Corps, said that he accepted full responsibility even though he couldn’t remember whose decision it had been. Considering that this error could be blamed for much of the debacle of the northern attack and led to such terrible losses it is perhaps not surprising that memories were less than perfect. De Lisle, commanding 29 Division, said that afterwards he concluded that he was ordered to blow the mine early (originally the evening previous) because the whole northern attack was a diversion* from the main southern attack but that he was not privy to that information at the time.

*EDIT: See Post 8 below where I correct myself - he used the term 'subsidiary' not 'diversion'.

[Guest KevinEndon]

Cheers Paul and Simon, as for Hawthorne, that is how it is written in the diary,

[Desmond7]

Simon Jones - quoting De Lisle - "because the whole northern attack was a diversion from the main southern attack" but that he was not privy to that information at the time.

I found De Lisle's perception extremely interesting. I have a very parochial knowledge of 1st July (for obvious reasons!) but I thank you for putting this titbit of information forward. I had formed the view that Gommecourt was the 'planned diversion' but this quote from De Lisle has opened up a new can of worms for me.

Was De Lisle's conclusion merited? Fascinating.

Oh and I can just see Hunter Bunter struggling to remember!

Des

[Paul Reed]

Yes, Hawthorn is often misspelt, even in contemporary documents.

[Andrew Hesketh]

I had formed the view that Gommecourt was the 'planned diversion' but this quote from De Lisle has opened up a new can of worms for me.

Gommecourt was the diversion. So I am also intrigued that De Lisle had come to the conclusion that his division's role was also diversionary.

(Simon - don't tell us that we'll have to buy the book to get the answer!)

[Simon Jones]

Andrew - maximising sales is obviously my aim here (do I feel a forum ban coming on?) but I should quote what de Lisle wrote to Edmonds as I see he doesn't in fact use the word 'diversion':

'Until after the attack we were in ignorance of the fact that the main attack was south of the Ancre, and that ours was only subsidiary. I then realized that the hour of the mine explosion was intended to draw the enemy’s attention to the northern flank, and this appears to have been successful as they expected ours to be the main attack.'

(Letter de Lisle to Edmonds 12/11/1929, NA CAB45/189).

[Guest KevinEndon]

From what you have typed Simon, Hawthorn mine could have gone up at any time if it was just to bring the attentions of the enemy to that area. I dont think history books will be re-written but it is an interesting point that it wasn't exploded 10 mins early and infact it was blown exactly to plan,

Kevin

[Desmond7]

This resonates with me now - I quote from Cyril Falls who, writing a Divisional history in the war's aftermath, states:-

It is the custom, kept throughout this History, to describe the course of battles from the right hand to the left. If here it is departed from, it is only because the action on the north side of the Ancre was separate from the other and of lesser importance. Its description, alas ! will occupy small space enough. There was here in Man's Land" a deep ravine, which the map contours show without giving an idea of its abruptness.

Des

[Muerrisch]

Yes, Hawthorn is often misspelt, even in contemporary documents.

Can you please substantiate this statement ..... you have produced no evidence, whereas we have seen evidence for the 'e' spelling.

Who is to say which was accepted as correct at that time?

[Tom Morgan]

Must say I have always gone with "Hawthorn" as the correct spelling. It's named "Hawthorn Redoubt" on the map I'm looking at, corrected to 6.2.16.

Tom

[Tom Morgan]

How easy it must have been, after the event, to start saying that the attack to the South of the Ancre, where there had been some moderate successes, had always been intended to be the real attack, while the areas around Beaumont Hamel and Serre, where the attacks had been typified by tragic failure, had always been intended to be subsidiary anyway. That's all right then!

Tom

[Paul Reed]

Can you please substantiate this statement ..... you have produced no evidence, whereas we have seen evidence for the 'e' spelling.

Who is to say which was accepted as correct at that time?

I am happy to post as many map and document extracts as you like. However, I thought it was widespread knowledge that there was no 'e' in the correct spelling of Hawthorn in respect of Hawthorn Ridge.

eg.

[Andrew Hesketh]

Andrew - maximising sales is obviously my aim here

I don't blame you!

Thanks for the quote. 'Subsidiary' is an interesting word for de Lisle to choose. Tom's point, that classifying the northern sector thus after the event would be an easy option, is also interesting. Is there any evidence, I wonder, that this was actually the case before the event in the mind of either Rawlinson or Haig? This is becoming a very fascinating discussion.

[Desmond7]

Tom - nails on head I think. re the subsidiary definitions. If the attacks north of the Ancre had accomplished objectives would the post war memories still have regarded the operation as subsidiary?

Des

Re - to 'e' or not to 'e' ... my large scale trench map dated 28/4/16 clearly has HAWTHORN.

Des

[Simon Jones]

I think to e or not to e is becoming a diversion, or is it a subsidiary?

[Andrew Hesketh]

Round of applause for that man!

On a serious note though, this is a very serious issue that has been raised. I'm no expert on the grander strategy and the thinking of the Generals, but I would be intrigued to know if the northern sector was viewed as subsidiary prior to it all going horribly wrong.

[Paul Reed]

I think to e or not to e is becoming a diversion, or is it a subsidiary?

Absolutely!

[Desmond7]

Cyril Falls ... and of lesser importance:lol:

My humble opinion would be ... militarily you've got a valley between two high points. If I was a military commander, in the simplest terms I would place equal importance on dominating the high ground on EACH side of the valley.

Methinks this 'subsidiary/lesser importance' explanation from post-war recollections is highly iffy.

Any memoirs lurking out there making similar points?

Des

[squirrel]

"which the map contours show without giving an idea of its abruptness." Des Post #10.

I find this a strange comment as IIRC map contours are supposed to be there to show exactly the steepness,(or abruptness), of a feature.

[Desmond7]

This is ravine from 1916 trench map .... now the Ancre River Cemetery (basically).

[Muerrisch]

I am happy to post as many map and document extracts as you like. However, I thought it was widespread knowledge that there was no 'e' in the correct spelling of Hawthorn in respect of Hawthorn Ridge.

Fine, happy with that, but it is not my scene and I thought the original posting was a bit abrupt and dismissive.

Hawthorn it is.

[squirrel]

Des Post #22 - "This is ravine from 1916 trench map .... now the Ancre River Cemetery (basically). "

Looks fairly steep to me from the map - mind you, I would have thought that they would have had some idea of the abruptness of the feature from patrolling etc before they attempted to cross no man's land.

[Desmond7]

Yes they did have a good idea - reckon Falls was writing for those who weren't there so to speak ...

However, this little snippet about subsidiary perceptions has clicked my curious button.

So I was musing ....

IF (big IF) the actions north of Ancre were truly 'subsidiary/lesser importance' and were classed as 'oh well it's not the end of the world if we don't score there .. they will have a positive effect in diversionary terms' ... that does not sit well with me.

That would mean that the objectives in that area were (more or less) peripheral to the overall plan. I cannot reconcile sich a view with Haig's much quoted fuming about what he believed to be a poor performance north of the Ancre (i.e. as far as I can see the soldiers of such and such never left their trenches .. basic interpretation, quoting from memory)

Surely the head honcho would not have made such a (admittedly incorrect and ill informed) statement if he placed only 'peripheral/lesser/subsidiary' importance on the attacks in this area? Haig, Rawlinson et al MUST have expected things to go better north of Ancre - not that they went tremendously better elsewhere (in comparison to the overall wish list).